A Meandering Sloth Revival

I began this blog in order to meet a requirement for one of my philosophy classes at ASU, Existentialism to be specific, and while I originally intended the blog to be a temporary platform, (I even coined the blog on a whim, choosing Meandering Sloth in a matter of seconds) I have decided to continue Meandering Sloth as a sort of online journal for my various projects and observations, as well as a creative outlet and way of documenting my progress.

Potentially the beginning of my first large project

While I have had this idea rather fleetingly as the academic semester came to a close, it was not until my stepmother proposed this alternative that I finally decided to attempt it, as I am doing now. My beginning plan will be to update this blog as frequently as I feel is appropriate. While I generally feel that a bi-weekly to weekly update schedule provides good balance, there may very well be periods where I post very little or more than normal, simply due to the fact that many of these projects involve subtle developments over longer periods of time (believe or not, plants tend to change very slowly, go figure).

More Questions Than Answers

With the final week of my freshman year of college here at ASU upon me, and the impending existentialism paper that will serve as my ticket out of my first full year of college, I have turned my existential thoughts towards meaning in life. In a way, I almost almost ashamed that this is the topic that has so strongly grasped me during these final weeks, it almost appears as a confirmation of the negative consequences I was told of when I decided to leave my family’s religion just over a year ago. However I do not feel that these questions are an indication that I need a supreme being in my life, rather these questions stem from a genuine understanding of my place in the universe and the ramifications of my imminent, and potentially eternal, death and non-existence. It is this same comprehension of my physical place in this vast cosmos that leads me to seek to do something of value with the little time I have on this planet. This is where my search for meaning comes from. Not from the supposed existence of a supreme power that manifests itself through corrupt churches and lying prophets, but from the very essence of Da-Sein itself. Although I feel much more confident in my beliefs now then I did before I left the church, I find that I have far fewer answers for questions, such as meaning, than I had when I was religious. While this would seem to be a negative, I actually find that I am far more comfortable seeking my own definition for meaning in life than I ever was subscribing to and defending the views given to me by others. It is strange, in a way, my grasping attempts to make sense of existence are far more satisfying than living with absolute knowledge that was not my own. Perhaps meaning in life does not exist as an objective value that can ever be known, but rather a metaphysical state that exists in conscious beings when they begin to question their own existence, almost a sign to ourselves that we truly are self aware, and that we are seeking answers.

The "Wilson" Effect

I had quite a successful presentation today in existentialism, if my general observations are correct. While there were multiple strong discussions that took place during our presentation, I was most strongly interested in the so called “Wilson effect” that became a hot topic during discussion of self and the Other. The question goes as such, if there was a human being born and raised in complete isolation from any other mind, would that human have a concept of self or being? Many of the participants suggested that the human in this case would create there own version of the Other, much in the same way Tom Hanks created Wilson when he was stranded in the movie Castaway. While this seemed to be a popular solution, I’m not sure that it would hold true for someone who had never experienced another conscious entity. According to Sartre, it is the look of others that creates the foundation for our being. Without the Other there to reflect upon and become objectified, a conscious being can never move from the subjective I to the objective me. While I remained convinced that a person born and raised in isolation would have no concept of self, there was an interesting point raised about potentially absorbing the Other and making it a part of our own consciousness. This is at least suggested by Sartre, when he says we have to take the freedom of the Other, but the suggestion was to reflect inwardly upon one’s self, effectively becoming one’s own Other. This seems to be similar to what Tom Hanks’ character did in Castaway, only rather than creating the Other inside his own consciousness, he instead gave it a physical form in the volleyball known as Wilson. While I am not even sure that this type of reflective conflict with a manufactured Other is possible, I certainly remain interested in the idea and plan to ponder it further.  

Bad Faith

I am very interested in the concept of “Bad Faith”, and how Sartre portrays it as being in a state of self denial concerning the objective state of affairs of the world and the subjective meanings or values that conscious beings assign to things. Sartre introduces his concept of Bad Faith with an anecdote of a woman on a date. Throughout the evening, the woman is constantly attempting to live in denial of the objective facts, or facticity as Sartre called it, while also being consciously aware of the subjective implications of her actions. While this seems to be a harmless enough set of circumstances, Sartre claims that this woman is living an example of Bad Faith by failing to live with a proper synthesis of her facticity and her transcendence. What I found most interesting about this anecdote was how familiar it sounded to what would popularly be considered normal and socially acceptable actions. Sartre emphasizes the fact that this woman frequently distances the meanings that actions represent from the actions themselves. For example, Sartre states that, “If he says to her, “I find you so attractive!” she disarms this phrase of it’s sexual background” (Solomon 224). Sartre included this specific sentence in his short anecdote representing Bad Faith because he believes this is a symptom of someone living in Bad Faith, yet this seems to be a standard attitude for many dating age men and women that I associate with. Sartre claims that bad faith, concerning facticity and transcendence, “does not wish either to coordinate them or to surmount them in a synthesis” (Solomon 226). Obviously a state that one would wish to avoid, and yet the signs of bad faith being pervasive throughout popular culture today seem quite prevalent. The disassociation of objective actions and subjective value seems prevalent in today's society, and it makes me what the long term consequences of such bad faith could have on an entire society such as our own.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Transcendence (but not like the movie)

“I am what I’m not and I’m not what I am”. I was struck by this Sartre quote that Thad gave during his lecture on Sartre’s philosophy. At first it seems completely incoherent and my initial reaction is to reject the statement outright as illogical and foolish, however, this statement is actually deceptively powerful in it’s implications. In order to understand what Sartre means by this quote, we must first understand Sartre’s definition of transcendence and facticity. Transcendence is the set of all the possibilities that a person has in their present or their future. A person’s hopes, dreams and goals are all constituent parts of the transcendence of that individual. Facticity, on the other hand, is the set of all the things that are true of a person either in their past or their present. Personal history, physical and mental attributes, and current social status are all examples of a persons facticity. Sartre’s quote, “I am what I’m not and I’m not what I am”, is directly in reference to these two concepts of transcendence and facticity. “I am what I’m not”, often times, we as individuals like to refer to ourselves in terms of the things we will do or plan to do. As a Physics major, I often consider myself a physicist, even though I have yet to graduate and thus do not have the facticity to back up this claim. In this half of the quote, Sartre is referring to the fact that the way we identify ourselves is not always the same as our facticity. The second half of the quote is merely a mirror image of the first with a very similar semantic meaning, “I’m not what I am”. If an individual prefers to think of themselves in terms of one’s own transcendence, then that individual is considering oneself as different from one’s own facticity. This quote seems to perfectly surmise the constant internal conflict that accompanies the consciousness of a social being. A constant struggle between what we are and what we wish to be.

A Search for Meaning

There certainly seems to be a theme throughout the majority of the existentialist literature that I have read up to this point. While none of them have been explicitly religious, quite the opposite actually, many of them still include premises that include some type of higher power, either in support of or against. I feel that this theme is the result of what existentialism, and philosophy in general, is trying to resolve within the human consciousness, a being understanding being. Take the simple existence of the ant, for example. The ant, with it’s significantly reduced cognitive ability as compared to your average human, does not have the capability for complex philosophical thought. The ant, although it performs a tremendous amount of physical work for its size and lives a considerably long time compared to other insects, will never recognize it’s own being. The ant will never question why there is something rather than nothing, or if there is a higher power, and while this may seem almost desirable for those who would prefer to live without the deep existential anguish that these questions can cause, this does not change the fact that we as humans are self conscious mammals, curious about our own existence. Jean-Paul Sartre follows in this theme of existentialism as a being attempting to understand existence in Existentialism is Humanism, where Sartre suggests that, if there is no higher power with knowledge of our essence, that we, as humans, are a being that has it’s own existence come before its essence. In effect, we are born into consciousness without a knowledge of our own essence or as Sartre put it, human nature. Because we had to exist before we could have knowledge of our essence, we use philosophy and existentialism to attempt to understand what we ourselves are. This search for understanding is what leads so many to religious faith, however it is also what leads people to higher philosophy, and this root cause is what leads to the seeming intertwinedness of the two schools of thought.

Something Rather Than Nothing

Why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question I have had experience with before, but always in a much more religious context. Normally it is proposed as a way to lead an individual to the conclusion that there must have been a creator to explain why there is anything at all. As such, I have grown quite bored of this question, however Heidegger proposes an alternate way of thinking of the question of why there is something rather than nothing. While I have typically regarded this question of being of little philosophical worth, Heidegger goes so far as to claim that it is, “the most fundamental of all questions”(Solomon 147). According to Heidegger, this is the most fundamental of all questions because it is the first question of true philosophy. Philosophy is not a field that you can do things with, Heidegger admits, but it is important rather because it is philosophy that can do things with us. While initially this seems rather counter intuitive, when it is considered again the deeper underlying truth of this statement seems to hold true. Heidegger is suggesting that it is philosophy that directly or indirectly precedes our actions. Before President John F. Kennedy could set the national goal to reach the moon, he had to have a philosophy that included the rationale that caused him to support space travel and national projects as morally good. This type of correlation can also be seen in young children who learn to obey the rules set by their parents. Their mental obedience of their parents’ ‘philosophy’ is what informs their physical actions in the adherence to those rules. While it has sometimes seemed that philosophy might have very few real world applications, the perspective that Heidegger introduced seems to be a way to bridge the gap between symbolic comprehension of philosophical thought and the real world application of said comprehension. Sadly, however, it seems that Heidegger’s profound revelation on the importance of philosophy has been lost on the general science community, as the philosophy field continues to be looked upon with subtle condescension, at least among undergraduate circles.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Philosophy Through Video Games

If there is one theme that appears to be present throughout many of the existentialist essays that I have read to this point in the semester, it is the silently accepted fact of the inevitability of death. Even the most outright religious philosophers that I have read, such as Kierkegaard and now Heidegger, have rarely touched upon questions of existence after death, the question of that follow life before death seem to be of much greater importance. With the impact that the inevitability of death appears to have on the deepest philosophical musings of the human race, it raises the interesting question of how mankind's overall philosophical trends would change if death was no longer relevant. Heidegger describes this connection in this excerpt from Being and Time,

“In dying, it becomes evident that death is ontologically constituted by mineness and existence”(Solomon 141).

I am reminded of an enemy faction in an old computer game, System Shock 2, The Many. The Many is a single organic consciousness that consists of a hive mind of many individual entities. In the game, The Many acts in opposition to the goals of the protagonist, however it does not act against the player in malice or hatred. The Many acts against the player purely out of philosophical differences that put it at odds with the goals of the player. The Many, as a single hive mind consisting of many individual parts, does not have any concept of individual death, as each individual consciousness is absorbed into one umbrella consciousness. Without the concept of death, how would the philosophy of a consciousness such as The Many differ from the philosophy of an individual being? Throughout System Shock 2, The Many tries to convince the player that joining the hive mind is in the protagonists best interest. Although the game portrays The Many as the enemy, this motivation casts The Many in a different light, perhaps it sees individuality as a disease that inevitably leads to death. As much as the plot of the game is structured in a way to cast individual consciousness as the ‘correct’ choice, it seems very possible that the logically superior choice is actually the hive mind consciousness.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

On Religion and Philosophy

One of the things I have enjoyed most while reading existentialist literature has been the lack of religious discussion that seems to describe many of these existentialist essays. Even the christian theologian of the 1700’s, Søren Kierkegaard only used his religious beliefs as a simple jumping off point for the more profound ideas he had concerning philosophy. It seems that Martin Heidegger may also fall into the same camp as Kierkegaard, although Heidegger seems to use a more general sense of religion rather than a strictly christian view. While I typically do not enjoy discussions of religion, I believe it is something that should be strictly personal, I find that having knowledge of a philosophers religious views can really add an enlightening perspective to their ideas. While Heidegger’s personal religious are never significantly revealed during these readings, his later works concerning being became increasingly theological in nature, having a prior knowledge of Heidegger’s strong Catholic identity make his views on death and Da-Sein all the more interesting. Particularly interesting to me is his hypothesis that one Da-Sein can experience the death of others. According to Heidegger, by one Da-Sein dying and transitioning into a state of no-longer-being-there, the Da-Sein enters a sort of being-with with others. Seemingly, as one dies, one also enters a new state of unity with other Da-Sein. As warm and fuzzy as this conclusion may seem at first, it is quite watered down due to the fact that, according to Heidegger, as a Da-Sein moves to a state of no-longer-being-there, it also loses the ability to experience this transition. Without an ability to experience this period, it makes little difference to the state of Da-Sein that we are currently in. I like the way this view seemingly contrasts with traditional Catholic belief of heaven and the afterlife. Rather than an eternity of heavenly bliss, Heidegger seems to propose that the afterlife is an endlessly un-experienceable state of being-with others.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Finding Meaning

I have not had much experience with holocaust readings up to this point in my education, which makes the description of how it affected the victims by Viktor Frankl all the more haunting, “The first spark of joy came when we saw a rooster with a tail of multicolored feathers. but it remained only a spark; we did not yet belong to this world.” (Solomon 354). This description of the state of mind that many of the victims of the holocaust had in their first few experiences of freedom puts Frankl’s philosophy  in a very interesting perspective. While my initial impressions of the consequences of extreme suffering include a sort of apathy for life and overall depression, Frankl’s experiences caused him to be even more ambitious about finding meaning in life in an enlighteningly optimistic way. I find that I am at odds with myself again after reading Frankl, with my rational, naturalistic side butting heads with the more romantic, philosophical side. I am enthralled by the philosophy Frankl proposes about how finding meaning is the grand motivation in a person’s life. Yet, Frankl also presents the opposing viewpoint quite succinctly, describing the foil to his philosophy as those who believe that man’s purpose is just a, “secondary rationalization”, of naturalistic, animal behavior. As a man of science, I often consider many issues of ethics and morality as boiling down to the so called “instinctual drives” that Frankl considers opposed to his viewpoint, yet I also agree with Frankl’s assessment that finding meaning is the primary motivation in one’s life. This also seems to come back to the issue of free will and choice. If Frankl is correct, then it means that we are free to choose that path that will give our lives meaning, and consequently we cannot simply be the product of biological reactions because biological reactions don’t make choices. It seems that either way, this view of finding meaning in one’s life and being the naturalistic view of being the result of biological and chemical reactions seem to be mutually exclusive, or at least that’s the way it seems at first glance.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Living the Contradiction

While I have at times found myself sharing the views and beliefs of many of the existentialist philosophers that I have read up to this point, the same cannot be said for Miguel de Unamuno, and the philosopher he most takes after, Kierkegaard. Within the first page of my reading from Unamuno’s The Tragic Sense of Life, I find my own personal viewpoint represented as a foil to the view that Unamuno presents. Specifically, I find myself in the camp of those who hypothetically tell Unamuno that his position is untenable, and that “unity and clarity are essential conditions for life and thought” (Solomon 157). Despite the fact that I, at this time, hold to a different perspective that Unamuno, I still find his belief extremely interesting as well as slightly disturbing. Unamuno, in direct acknowledgment of the contradiction it entails, claims that it is the disjunction between his beliefs and his actions that unifies him under one purpose. While someone such as myself would claim that in order for a person’s life to have unity, that person must also hold to the tenets of logic and reason that govern the universe, Unamuno seems to call upon Kierkegaard’s ideas concerning passion and claim that it is the conflict in his life that brings him passion and therefor purpose. His philosophy becomes rather disturbing when he comes to the justification for his passion in living in this perpetual contradiction. He gives the metaphor of a man who believes that he is on an unstable boat, if the boat starts to sink, he will be unphased because he already knew that this was a possibility. If the man is the philosopher living in the real world, and the boat is the belief system that a person has, than Unamuno is effectively suggesting to abandon absolute faith in anything. A type of ultimate skepticism where nothing can be believed in too intently lest it give way like the unstable boat as the foolish philosopher, “himself trembles in the earthquake” (Solomon 158).

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Freedom and Determinism

As I am one who has faith in the theory of determinism, the philosophical and scientific idea that chemical and physical reactions govern the choices we make and create the illusion of free will, I have normally given little deep thought to questions of agency and choice that seem to be a mainstay of popular philosophy, noticing that few other theories concerning free will lack the amount of evidence that determinism has in its favor. Considering the confidence I have in determinism, typically questions and monologues concerning free will tend to leave me relatively uninterested. However, Feodor Dostoevsky, in a select reading from Notes From Underground, seemingly uses determinism as a jumping off point to analyze the deeper meanings of freedom itself. Dostoevsky claims that determinism and freedom are incompatible, that in order to have freedom, one cannot have their choices dictated by natural laws. Natural laws, according to Dostoevsky, always lead a person to choose what is in their best interest through logic and reason. However, if we follow what our instincts and rationality tell us to do to meet our best interest, we lose our freedom. We become robots executing the programs coded in our DNA. However, Dostoevsky claims that through our knowledge of these natural laws, we can choose to disobey them and gain true freedom. Although many of the different ‘flavors’ of determinism, so to speak, claim that it is impossible to do anything contrary to natural laws, these theories tend to fall apart when attempting to explain the illusion of choice that we experience through consciousness. It is the theories of determinism of this variety that seem to most closely match some of the new evidence humanity has gathered in the last 200 hundred years or so, yet if one were to converted by Dostoevsky’s very convincing argument, these two different ideas would cause one to either reject the idea of free will, or refuse to act in self interest in defiance.

Master and Slave Morality in The Fountainhead

I've noticed a lot of similarities between Nietzsche’s views on morality and Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, particularly in Nietzsche’s theory on master and slave morality. Nietzsche theorizes that the world is divided into masters and slaves, where masters are the ones who will after power and gain independence and freedom from the herd. Slaves, on the other hand, both envy and despise those masters who have gained true freedom. In Ayn Rand’s Objectivist novel, The Fountainhead, Howard Roark is a young architect who seeks after greatness. Roark epitomizes the Objectivist theory, he is an intelligent, driven, yet self centered individual who shows little concern for how he is perceived by others. Roark bears striking similarities to Nietzsche's masters, a strong will, a desire for power or success, and a lack of concern for the perception of others. This similarity is significant to me as I was reading Nietzsche because I was pondering if a world where this master and slave morality is recognized and followed would continue to function effectively. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand demonstrates a hypothetical world where the masters, characters such as Howard Roark and others, are more abundant and more powerful. The final result is a utopian society of equality, economic efficiency, zero crime, and a focus on personal achievement. Although the master and slave morality seems counter intuitive to the success of a society as a whole at first glance, it seems that the fictional world in The Fountainhead provides a potential template for how a world such as this could exist and actually benefit society. A desire for power and a strong will are, today at least, very often demonized in our culture. Individuals who possess these traits are often portrayed as cold, mechanical, and oftentimes downright evil. I am convinced, however, that Nietzsche and Ayn Rand are on the right path with their views on morality. Personal self interest above all else can manifest itself in a variety of ways that seems contradictory to the selfish behaviors they stem from. For instance, although it may seem that I am acting selflessly when I return a call from my grandmother, I am actually acting in self interest because it is in my best interest to maintain a positive relationship with my family. The same type of situation occurs when I pay taxes, the taxes may seem detrimental to my self interest, due to the fact that they take money that I could otherwise use towards my other needs, but in fact it is im my best personal interest to continue to have a government that maintains the infrastructure I use. In this way I believe that it is possible to have a functional, successful society based off of Nietzsche’s system of morality.

The Objective Nature of Things

The concept of absurdity seems deceptively dangerous in its implications. Taken to its logical extreme, absurdity could potentially render conscious beings as nothing more than lost consciousness in a universe where nothing happens for any particular reason. Yet absurdity, at least according to Nietzsche, is unavoidable. Although we may like to believe that we can prove things true or false through natural law and deduction, I think particularly of the fields of physics and logic, we fail in that our logical reasoning only takes into account the factors which are in our perspective. As Nietzsche says himself.

“There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”” (Solomon 96).

Because we can only see things from a limited number of perspectives depending on the number of observers we have, we can never see more than a fraction of objective reality. Even some of the most studied and well documented processes in physics; Newton’s Laws, for example, have only been observed from a finite number of perspectives, and thus it does not reveal more than an incomplete portion of reality. This ties back into the Problem of Induction, just as we can not extrapolate from past experiences to predict future events, we can also not extrapolate from our small, incomplete perspectives to determine the objective nature of things. Although this does not have an impact on how one should live their day to day life, one should not expect gravity to randomly reverse on day, and it does not even have a significant impact on the results gathered from physics. However, from a philosophical perspective, anyone with particular interest in the concept of absurdity will find this conclusion extremely disturbing. Yet somehow I am expected to continue with my daily rounds as if my grasp of objective reality has not been shaken to the core by Nietzsche’s absurdity.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

I Didn't Know How to Spell Nietzsche

I’m honestly a little shocked to be reading Nietzsche at this point. Although I knew that Nietzsche was going to be covered in this class, I always felt like I would have a stronger, more concrete grasp of the existentialist prose. Yet here I am, just as lost and mystified in the complex logical reasoning and unconventional thinking as I was almost three months ago (although, in a way that might be the purpose of existentialist philosophy). While I know that a portion of this lack of progression is due to my focus being placed elsewhere and due to the fact that as a physics major, my thoughts processes are more mathematical than philosophical, I can’t help but feel unprepared for Nietzsche. I have always heard reference to Nietzsche in most any semi-serious conversation that involves philosophy, but his works were always used and cited in such a way that they appeared too advanced for the amateur philosopher. After my first reading of Nietzsche, I find that I can see why he was often portrayed as being a much more advanced philosopher than those who are often used to introduce beginners such as I was, or possibly continue to be. Nietzsche, although I will admit that my reading of him to this point has been little, seems almost uninterested in the seemingly mundane existentialist questions and instead goes straight for the ones that seem to epitomize existentialist thought. The death of God, the source of morality, and the cause of consciousness are all questions that Nietzsche has begun to tackle in my limited readings. The death of God concept was especially interesting to me, particularly how Nietzsche describes how the death of God affects philosophers,

“we philosophers and “free spirits” feel, when we hear the news that “the old God is dead,” as if a new dawn shone on us” (Solomon, 68).

This lead me to ask, does the death of the old God lead to expanded avenues of philosophical thought in the same way it leads to expanded thoughts of scientific thought? I feel the death of the old God, Nietzsche seems to highlight the Christian God, may have had the same effect on philosophical thought that it had on scientific inquiry. The effect that, by removing the restrictions placed on questioning based on the religious tradition, scientists in the last two hundred years have made incredible advancement in the amount of knowledge available to humanity. While I am not familiar enough with the development of philosophy in the last two hundred years to say for certain, I feel that Nietzsche described an actual pattern in philosophy analogous to that which took place physical sciences.

Solomon, Robert C. Existentialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

Objective Uncertainty and the Problem of Induction

In a philosophy course that I took last semester, we briefly touched on the problem of induction, the issue that arises when objective knowledge of the past and present is used to predict future events. Because all of our knowledge of the world up to this point is based solely on either current or past occurrences, we have no way of definitively knowing that the future will follow the same rules as the past. This simple logic problem was and continues to be slightly disturbing to me. As a self proclaimed scientist, I have lived most of my teen and adult life in accordance with logic and rationality, believing them to be the only true way to learn about reality. However, this problem of induction, which I still have no idea how to resolve, put skeptical strain on the same logic and rationality that I had placed so much trust into. While this problem has not been sufficient enough to steer me into a life of ignorant bliss, it has remained a problem nonetheless. After reading Kierkegaard’s Truth is Subjectivity, I am struck once again with the feeling that Kierkegaard has very similar thought processes to my own. Kierkegaard seems to differentiate between the actual truth of things and what we believe to be the truth of things. The things that are actually true have an objective uncertainty, a very similar idea to the problem of induction, that makes them impossible to actually know. However, we believe that we know these things, so much so that they appear to us to be facts, despite the fact that due to objective uncertainty we can never truly know anything about the future. The mental faculty that fills the gap between the objective uncertainty of what is actually true and what we believe we know to be true is, according to Kierkegaard, faith. In one elegant swoop Kierkegaard managed to hold to his use of logic and rationality while also justifying and strengthening his concept of faith. A bold and brilliant move that has not been lost on me.

“Faith is just the contradiction between inwardnesses infinite passion and the objective uncertainty”

-Kierkegaard

God Works in Mysterious Ways

Søren Kierkegaard seems to be a striking example of one of the few rational, logician-esque individuals who attempt and succeed at compartmentalizing, and thus holding to, fundamental Christianity and logic. While I surely been influenced by my community, I have generally held the the view that compartmentalizing these two beliefs is not possible and that an individual will only be able to sustain one. However Kierkegaard seems to have come up with an elegant and effective resolution to this potential issue. He proposes that because God performs ‘miracles’, He is at odds with reason. Because logic and proof can only answer things that are not at odds with reason, they cannot answer questions about God. I have heard this idea recently from several different sources, almost always fundamentalist Christian apologists, and generally people who I both dislike and disagree with. These modern apologists seem alien to me, they have abandoned logic and reason in exchange for their beliefs, and they hold values that are almost always in opposition to my own. However, Kierkegaard holds the same basic views with these apologists but he is a man who seems to be cut from a similar cloth to my own. Kierkegaard is a logical, thoughtful man first, and a Christian second. In one striking quote, he demonstrates this conflict,”...it is easier to become a Christian when I am not a Christian than to become Christian when I am one…”. As someone who has personally disavowed Christianity, seeing this analogous conflict to my own, leads me to view his conclusions on Christianity and God in a more favorable light and may even cause me to reflect on some of my own views with more scrutiny than I have before.

As an aside; I am convinced Kierkegaard would be a great wit if he were to live in our current time, just take a look at this gem, “People rarely make use of the freedom they have, for example, freedom of thought, instead they demand freedom of speech as compensation.”

What is the Nature of the Self?

The most recent discussion of existentialism in which I was engaged brought back to my memory some thoughts concerning individuality and self that I have not entertained recently. Specifically, I wonder about the nature of human individuality when we are obviously a social animal that relies on social constructs to maintain good health. This trail of thought occurred to me as I was reflecting on an earlier class discussion about Camus’ The Fall. There seemed to be a recurring theme through some of the story plots, of the individual being an entity defined by the observations of those around it. Jean-Baptiste helping the blind man and making it an obvious show, taking the dying man’s water because he is more important to those around him, and his execution where he is a reflection of shame upon on the onlookers. Although I know that this is a secondary meaning of the novel at best, I couldn't help but notice, and it made me ask the question again, what is it to be an individual? Although the romantic side of me likes to cling to the idea that I am an individual independent of my surroundings, regardless of situation and circumstance I would continue to be the same individual. However, the scientist in me is not so easily convinced. A major theme that I have learned in Sociology is the how significantly influenced individuals are by the society that they live in. In an almost completely subconscious series of events, individuals gradually change to fit the society in which they live, and many sociologists have theories of the self that define the self as only being a reflection of those around the person. This makes me wonder what would happen to an individual who lived his life in complete isolation. Would he become a feral animal? Would he live a healthy, although lonely, life? Or would he even survive without some type of social reaction?

Focus on the Ideas, Not the Words - Albert Camus' "The Stranger"

I was struck by the ‘author worship’ that I witnessed during class discussions of The Stranger. I was distinctly reminded of my time in church when I was younger. Not only were the words out of those holy books taken to be perfect and absolute, but equally valid were any conclusions that could be drawn by reading between the lines. I would find myself being praised for pulling a moral “truth” out from the subtext of a verse or a line, a moral that, in hindsight, the author really had no intention of implying. A similar type of thing seems to be happening with The Stranger, at least in the class discussions I have been a part of. With all due respect to Albert Camus, the great philosopher and author that he is, he is but a man and his words should be regarded as such. I find it hard to believe that Camus intended for his work to be the object of intense scrutiny and the template from which diverse conclusions can be drawn. Rather it would seem to me that his work is meant to be the diving off point for discourse to occur separately and independently from the pages of his novel. To spur the kind of existentialist thinking that is demonstrated in his writing. No where is this more clear to me than in the final few paragraphs of The Stranger. With the story of our protagonist drawing to a close, Camus effectively presents the ‘thesis’ of his novel, “Living as he did, like a corpse, he couldn't even be sure of being alive. It might look as if my hands were empty. Actually, I was sure of myself, sure about everything, far surer than he; sure of my present life and of the death that was coming.” Over the span of about half a page, Camus presents the train of existentialist thought that has been gaining speed throughout the length of the novel. This is where I believe he wanted the focus of the novel to be, not on the specifics of Marie’s manner of speech or the way the courtroom was described, the 74 pages prior to this final outburst serve merely as a “slow, persistent breeze” (Camus, 75) in order to set up the final, thought provoking, existentialist message Camus dedicated his life’s work to.

Philosophy for the Conscious

Existentialism. The word itself feels alien and scholarly. A subject only to be pondered by those much more versed in philosophy than I, by those who have had a lifetime of meaningful experience and wisdom beyond their years, not by a freshman at a public university who has only left the country once and has scarcely begun to experience adult responsibilities. Yet throughout the introduction to this subject, both in class and in the reading, there seems to be a powerful emphasis on the accessibility of this philosophy independent of age. It seems that existentialism is less for those exceptional few with great insight into the human condition as it is for those who have pondered the simple questions of, “Why am I here?”, “What does it mean to be conscious?” and “What is the point of my existence?” but refuse to accept the layman explanations that seem to plague society at large.

It is with this understanding of existentialism that I will take with me moving forward. I have not suffered the existential crises that seem to characterize the greatest existentialists throughout human history, I am choosing here to omit the sudden realizations of ones own mortality or the insignificance of ones existence in the universe as I feel that every person deals with these same epiphanies at some point in their lives, although the methods of dealing with these thoughts varies vastly between persons. I will enter this subject of study with an open mind, willing to forego any previous assumptions I may have had of the world, including those natural explanations of the world that come most readily to me as a physics major and math oriented individual, in order to accept the possibilities of an absurd, dangerous, temporary, uncaring, hopeless, yet all the while breathtakingly beautiful, world.